GMO Food for Thought

According to the following article, since Bt maize was introduced in Europe, crop yields have gone up, farmers’ reliance on insecticides has fallen significantly and the quality of maize has improved. This is great to see.

C.S. Prakash

Navigating the genetic engineering maze
Alpha Galileo
May 8, 2008

In the decade since genetically modified strains of maize resistant to insects have been grown in the European Union, crop yields have gone up, farmers' reliance on insecticides has fallen significantly and the quality of maize has improved. That's the message from research published this month in the International Journal of Biotechnology from Inderscience Publishers.

Agricultural economist Graham Brookes of PG Economics Ltd, based in Dorchester, UK, has reviewed the specific economic impacts on yield and farm income as well as the environmental impact with respect to a lower reliance on insecticide usage since the introduction of GM maize in the EU in 1998.

So-called "Bt" maize carries genes for a highly specific insect toxin from the soil-dwelling microbe Bacillus thuringiensis. This toxin kills the European corn borer and the Mediterranean stem borer, which would otherwise damage maize crops without insecticidal spraying.

Brookes' analysis reveals that profits have risen by more than a fifth for some farmers who previously used synthetic insecticides to control these pests. He points out that GM technology has reduced insecticide spraying markedly, which also has associated environmental benefits. He also points out that the quality of the maize produced is higher because the GM crop is less susceptible than non-GM maize to infestation with fungi that produce mycotoxins, hazardous to human health.

Bt maize was planted for the first time in 1998 in Spain and in 2007 the total area of this crop in Spain was about 75000 hectares. In total, the EU plantings of Bt maize in 2007 were 110,000 hectares, with crops also in France, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Poland. This represents 1.3% of total EU grain maize plantings in 2007.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:58 PM | Permalink

Aaron Golas posted the following entry in his blog Synapostasy criticizing Andrew Kimbrell for speaking out against genetically modified sugar beets. Golas points out that, despite Kimbrell’s claims, GM sugar beets do not produce glyphosate, they merely are resistant to it.

C.S. Prakash

Not-Monsters Adding Not-Poison to Sugar
Synapostasy blog
May 08, 2008

Andrew Kimbrell is a goddamn bio-Luddite, one of many.

It embarrasses me that certain liberals can be so staunchly and irrationally opposed to technology, based upon paranoia over corporate interest, a weirdly conservative adherence to the simple purity of "Nature," and their own naked ignorance. One of the major victims of bio-Luddite oppression is genetically modified (GM) foods, sometimes referred to as "Frankenfoods" (but not by me).

In a column today in the Huffington Post, Kimbrell sows paranoia over a specific GM crop, the Roundup Ready sugar beet developed by Monsanto. These sugar beets are genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup.

GM opponents often have a hard time explaining just what makes GM food so dangerous. Sometimes it's argued that the introduced genes themselves are somehow pollutive, despite the fact that it's all the same adenine guanine cytosine thymine, baby. Kimbrell makes a particularly poor argument here, based on glyphosate:

At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5,000% -- glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Sugar is extracted from the beet's root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.

He then goes on about how seed farmers could start making seeds from Roundup Ready sugar beets so the GM crop spreads, and how sugar from GM beets gets mixed in with regular beets, and how GM beet pollen could contaminate other crops' genetics, and how there could be a huge consumer backlash, and how Big Science is putting poison in your dear mother's chocolates OMG!!!

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:00 PM | Permalink

Even the former UN World Food Program Executive Director Jim Morris supports ethanol, this is great to see! As he points out, “food should be used to feed people before being turned into fuel, but [he] also thinks it’s moral to use food for fuels.” Well said.

C.S. Prakash

Ex-food chief: Crops for fuel is OK
NewsTalk
May 5, 2008

In his five years as executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, Jim Morris saw global hunger from an uncomfortably close vantage point.

So, one might expect him to criticize the idea of turning corn and soybeans into alternative fuels. After all, the ethanol and biodiesel plants popping up in Indiana and elsewhere across the Midwest siphon food away from people who are starving to death at the rate of one every five seconds.

But that’s not what he thinks.

Now president of the Indiana Pacers, Morris still believes food should be used to feed people before being turned into fuel, but he also thinks it’s moral to use food for fuels.

“We have a fair balance,” he says. “It’s not an either-or situation.”

Morris, who helped launch amateur sports in Indianapolis and once led Lilly Endowment, quickly adds caveats.

More countries need to get over their fears of biotech crops. Genetically engineered crops are hardier and have great potential to increase food production, he says, a notion China and India have begun to embrace but Africa still needs to learn.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:38 PM | Permalink

Science Daily recently published an article that claims herbicide tolerant crops can improve water quality. The article cites a study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH. Read more about the study below and the follow the link to the Genetic Modification blog to finish.

C.S. Prakash

Herbicide Tolerant Plants Can Help Improve Water Quality
Genetic Modification blog
April 23, 2008

Although genetically modified crops are getting so much flak today, there seems to be some instances where they may provide some positive benefits in some areas related to farming and the environment. According to an article on the sciencedaily website, a team of researchers found out that genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may have helped reduce herbicide runoff in watersheds and improve water quality in a four-year span.

A four-year study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH, aimed to compare the relative losses of residual and contact herbicides when applied at normal rates. Both types of herbicides were applied to seven small watersheds that was planted with genetically modified Liberty Linked corn and Roundup Ready soybean. Residual herbicides are the type of herbicides more commonly used for most organic crops while contact herbicides began its use with the introduction of genetically modified herbicide resistant crops.

The researchers noted that losses of contact herbicides were usually much less in surface run-off than for those areas where residual herbicides were used as a percentage of the amount of herbicide that was used. When averaged for all the soybean crop years, glyphosate runoff was about one half that of alachlor and one seventh of metribuzin, two of the residual herbicides that can be replaced by the contact herbicide Roundup. In the same study, another contact herbicide, glufosinate (Liberty) has an average runoff loss one fourth that of atrazine, a type of residual herbicide for corn crops that it can replace.

Residual herbicide runoff in different bodies of water has been a constant problem in areas of the country where farming is practiced. These residual herbicides find their way in nearby rivers, streams and lakes as well as water reservoirs and build up concentrations that can exceed drinking water standards. This poses a problem if those bodies of water are also used as sources of drinking water. This contamination can lead to increased costs when treating the water supply and may even result for the need to look for alternative sources of water supply.

The study showed that replacing residual herbicides with that of contact herbicides while planting genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may help avoid contaminating watersheds and water supply sources from excessive herbicide surface runoffs.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:00 AM | Permalink

The New York Times published an article today on the growing demand for European countries to accept genetically modified feed. Livestock farmers are being forced to pay extremely high prices for organic feed because GM feed is banned in Europe. A surge in interest concerning the development of genetically modified grains, specifically wheat is also discussed. Read more below.

C.S. Prakash

In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo
New York Times
April 21, 2008

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky.

“We cannot afford it,” said a corn buyer at Kato Kagaku, a Japanese maker of corn starch and corn syrup.

In the United States, wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease. Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and that they might pose risks to health and the environment.

“I think it’s pretty clear that price and supply concerns have people thinking a little bit differently today,” said Steve Mercer, a spokesman for U.S. Wheat Associates, a federally supported cooperative that promotes American wheat abroad.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:56 AM | Permalink

A UK food manufacturing magazine is disputing claims made by the Soil Association that genetically modified crops do not increase yield. Food Manufacture, the UK’s leading food and drink market magazine published an article quoting Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics as saying that he is frustrated with reports that simply “cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument.”

C.S. Prakash

Organic lobby spreading ‘nonsense’ about GM, claim scientists
Food Manufacture
April 21, 2008

New claims by environmental lobbyists that genetic modification (GM) does not increase crop yields or reduce pesticide use have been dismissed by plant breeding experts as “total nonsense”.

According to the Soil Association (SA), “the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties”, while “any initial reduction in pesticide use is short-lived and often reversed as new pests arrive and old ones adapt”. Its comments came in the wake of recent moves to reignite the GM debate by scientists claiming that transgenic crops could boost agricultural productivity in the face of global food shortages and climate change.

Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics, said he was becoming “increasingly frustrated by reports that cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument”.

Brookes, a joint author of a major report on the environmental and economic impact of agricultural biotechnology published last year, said: “This is just complete nonsense. Pesticide use has not increased as a result of the adoption of biotech crops – indeed, it has fallen significantly relative to levels of use that would have occurred without using biotechnology.”

Likewise, it was “deeply insulting to the intelligence of farmers” to say that there were no economic benefits to using GM technology, he said. “They criticise biotech companies for having a vested interest - along the lines of ‘you would say that wouldn’t you’, but they also have a vested interest in attacking GM crops and supporting organic agriculture, which typically delivers far lower yields.”

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:13 AM | Permalink

The Western Australia Farmers Federation is backing the use of genetically modified crops as a way for farmers to cut reliance on fertilizer. The following article states that the price of fertilizer has risen drastically this year, prompting the government to look into the fertilizer industry and causing farmers to take another look at GM crops.

C.S. Prakash

GM crops cut reliance on fertiliser: WAFF
ABC News
April 21, 2008

Western Australia's peak farm body is backing the use of Genetically Modified Crops as a way of cutting a reliance on fertiliser.

Some fertiliser prices have risen almost three-fold this year, prompting a Senate inquiry into the fertiliser industry.

In a submission to the inquiry, WA Farmers Federation Economist Julian Breheny says the increases are enough of a shock to outweigh the emotional arguments against GM crops.

"It can improve fertiliser use efficiency and I think that as we go forward and we see possible rises due to shortages then its very important that we consider all options," he said.

"I just don't think that we can ignore science that has already proved in concept that it can improve fertiliser use efficiency, and I think that as we see possible rises due to shortages its very important that we consider all options."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:57 AM | Permalink

Check out this random blog entry by Jackie Danicki. She loudly proclaims that she is not afraid to eat genetically modified foods and is tired of others telling her not to. Great job Jackie!

C.S. Prakash

On genetically modified food
Jackie Danicki
April 18, 2008

People always look at me in horror when I say that I have zero problem with eating genetically modified foods. Even if I did, I would not consider it up to you or any politician to decide whether or not I should be permitted to do so, or whether it should be legal to do so or not. Of course it should be legal. Of course one should be allowed to eat whatever one wishes. If you are to make the offensive suggestion that it is your or another person’s decision to make for me, the onus is on you to make the case for that.

So, yeah: Pass the franken-food.

I would like to ask some of the [GM critics] how they imagine most strains of wheat, barley, soybeans or rice that have been staples of diets for centuries came along. They are, albeit through trial and error over eons, just as ‘modified’ as a Monsanto crop. And that I think is the kicker: it is the speed of scientific change, not the change as such, that gives people the heeby-jeebies about genetic modification. I am not sure how that can be easily addressed without massive improvements in popular understanding of science.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:51 AM | Permalink

Reuters also posted an article on the trouble BASF is having in Europe. This report states that BASF is considering legal action if the EU does not approve its genetically modified potato for commercial cultivation. The article also reinforces that the potato would be used solely for industrial purpose, such as making paper, due to its high starch content.

C.S. Prakash

BASF ready for lawsuit against EU on GMO potato
Reuters
April 17, 2008

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - German chemical company BASF may take legal action against the European Commission if approval of its genetically modified (GMO) potato is not issued soon, a senior company official said on Thursday.

"We are prepared to take legal action against the Commission," said Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF's board of executive directors told reporters at a briefing.

Asked about a possible timeframe, he said: "Not years, we are doing the utmost to meet the next planting season."

After an inconclusive meeting this week with EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, BASF sent him an open letter -- printed across German media, the Financial Times and other newspapers on Thursday -- demanding that the Commission approve its Amflora potato "without any further delay".

If approval is given, it would be the EU's first authorization of a GMO product for cultivation in a decade. Only one GMO crop may be grown commercially in the EU, a maize made by U.S. biotech company Monsanto and approved in 1998.

"We have not been satisfied with the process of approval so we took this unusual step (of the open letter)," Marcinowski said. "The decision has been sitting for nine months on the desk of Commissioner Dimas."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:44 AM | Permalink

The UK Telegraph published the following article today on Europe’s resistance to genetically modified crops and food. Citing food shortages, the author says that the acceptance of GM crops in Europe will encourage other parts of the world to follow, and help eliminate food shortages.

C.S. Prakash

GM crops can save us from food shortages
The Telegraph
April 17, 2008

It is remarkable how rapidly the world has moved from worrying about deflation to worrying about inflation; from cheer to despondency about the reduction of poverty; and from concern about food surpluses to panic about shortages.

• Simple ways to cut your carbon footprint
• GM food wins backing from Country Life

The hand of rising food prices is suddenly seen everywhere: in the riots in Tibet against Chinese rule; in drastic measures in the Philippines, Egypt, India and many African countries to restrict food exports; in calls for more aid; and even in the Bank of England's reluctance to cut interest rates as fast as its American counterpart.

For agricultural commodity prices (what we call "food") to have more than doubled in the past three years is an astonishing and worrying turn of events. But in responding to it, we need to understand the true nature of the problem.

And we must recognise that a big part of this problem is our own fault - because of our ill thought-out enthusiasm for using food to fuel cars as well as stomachs; and because of our longer-established but also ill considered opposition to the use of genetic engineering to help us grow more food.

Start with the true nature of the problem of food-price inflation. Most attention has been given to shortages in supply and to the increased appetite in China and India for meat, which requires more grain.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:22 AM | Permalink

I found this article in Forbes today on biotechnology seed maker BASF. According to the article, EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas refuses to lift the ban on growing BASF’s genetically modified potato, Amflora. Check out the article below and let me know what you think, is Dimas being unreasonable?

C.S. Prakash

BASF demands approval of genetically modified potato from EU's Dimas
Forbes
April 17, 2008

FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - BASF SE. said it published an open letter to EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas demanding speedy approval of genetically modified potato Amflora for commercial cultivation after a meeting between Dimas and the company on Tuesday failed to produce an agreement.

'Representatives from the Commission were not able to present new scientific findings that would argue against approving Amflora for commercial cultivation in Europe,' BASF said in a statement.

A decision on the matter has been outstanding since July 2007, and BASF last year said it expects approval in September 2007.

'An important future technology that offers benefits to farmers and the starch industry in Europe is being blocked without any reason,' BASF said in a statement.

'And even though all steps in the EU approval process have been taken successfully, Mr. Dimas failed to grant approval.'

BASF earlier this year said the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recommended approval of the cultivation of Amflora and of use of the potato as feed, stating Amflora is as safe for humans, animals and the environment as conventional potatoes.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:20 AM | Permalink

I ran across an interesting blog post by GMO Africa blogger James Wachai today. He links to a blog post written by rice geneticist Dr. Pamela Ronald, who writes positively about genetically modified crops. He notes, and I agree, that it’s great to see a scientist writing positively on this subject; it doesn’t happen enough.

C.S. Prakash

UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering
GMO Africa
April 15, 2008

Blogger Karl J. Mogel of The Inoculated writes that Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table. Pam’s blog celebrates crop genetic engineering, from a scientist point of view.

Nobody’s excited by Pam’s blog than me. On this blog, on several occasions, I’ve exhorted scientists to take charge of the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Read this post on this subject that I made in December 2006.) Thumbs up Pam for taking the gauntlet.

Since the commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1995, scientists haven’t been forceful enough to educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. Many - except people like Norman Borlaug, Roger Beachy, Sir David King, Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Clive James, Dr. Luciana De Ciero, Dr. Ruth Oniang’o - have opted to maintain a studious silence as the science behind crop genetic engineering is distorted right and left by people who couldn’t conduct a simple high school lab experiment. These are the people who have been ruling the airwaves and the internet with unsubstantiated decibel rhetoric against GMOs.

Scientists are to blame for this state of affairs. Had they, in the early beginning, demanded every charge against GMOs be scientifically substantiated, the current poisonous debate about GM crops would not be there. And it’s not too late. Pam, through her Tomorrow Table blog, has set the pace: others should follow.

The world wants scientists to take lead in this debate. It’s them who should be saying whether or not GM crops offer any hope to farmers not some shenanigans whose sole motive is to create confusion and despondency in farmers and policy makers.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:33 AM | Permalink

GMO Africa blogger James Wachai posted the following blog entry on an interview conducted by Reason Magazine with Robert Paarlberg on GMOs and Africa. James has a lot of interesting comments on the issues raised by the interview; check them out below.

C.S. Prakash

Journalist counsels Africa on GMOs
GMO Africa
April 2, 2008

Journalist Kerry Howley of the Reason magazine has written a very riveting and informative article on how fear is being used to deny Africa cutting-edge technologies. Howley writes how activists descend on Africa every time new technologies emerge. They, using apocalyptic theories, misadvise and mislead Africans into not embracing these technologies.

Africans are usually warned of cataclysmic consequences if they adopt new technologies. Usually, they’re told the West wants to use them as guinea pigs, or to enslave them. Most play along, thanks to high illiteracy levels and unavailability and/or access to alternative sources of information. Always the consequences are grave: the rest of the world prospers, while Africa wallows in poverty. Essentially, Africa merely gawks as other countries industrialize.

Howley beautifully illustrates this point using the swirling debate about genetically modified (GM) foods. She writes how African countries have shunned GM foods on the advice of consumer advocacy groups such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. These groups happen to have a big presence in Africa

Except South Africa, no other African country is currently growing genetically modified (GM) crops. We’ve read reports of countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe turning away food from the World Food Program (WFP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USaid) on suspicions they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) Many African countries have passed laws to completely bar GM crops.

In her article, Howley laments that Zambia and Zimbabwe’s turning away of GM food “…brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state.” She regrets that “…cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed.”

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:35 AM | Permalink

Saw this blog entry while surfing around today. Roger Beachy of the Danforth Center was speaking to students at the University of California – Davis about the negative views associated with genetically modified organisms Beachy said many consumers have a bad opinion or GMOs because the media has portrayed them in that way. Read more about Beachy’s views below.

C.S. Prakash

Let the people decide on GMOs
The Notes from a Gene Safari blog
April 2, 2008

Roger Beachy (of the Danforth Center) came to UC Davis this week to give a seminar. The grad students had the good fortune of meeting with him over lunch. He has some very interesting perspectives on genetic engineering that I haven't heard before.

One of his most striking points was that all this hype we hear of the public being against GMOs is largely generated by the media. The consumer public has been given very few opportunities to make decisions for themselves. He gave several examples of the public enthusiastically embracing GMOs.

• Most papayas now have engineered resistance to the papaya ringspot virus (due to disastrous epidemics in Hawaii). Non-engineered, infected papayas have cosmetic blemishes and spoil quickly. Consumers prefer the engineered, virus-free fruit despite labels that declare the inclusion of recombinant DNA technology
• The Flavr Savr tomato, engineered to decrease spoilage, apparently couldn't be stocked fast enough to supply the public during its brief existence (until Calgene went out of business and ceased production)
• A study in Pennsylvania found that consumers at a farmers market presented with three types of sweet corn (engineered for insect resistance, conventional and organic) preferred organic to conventional corn and GMO corn to both organic and conventional. The GMO crop was favored because it was produced without pesticides OR the insects/insect damage that usually occur in the absence of pesticides.

Much more importantly, he described the center's humanitarian efforts in Africa. They are engineering crops with disease resistance and greatly elevated levels of vitamins and protein to fight malnutrition. They are also creating corn varieties that are resistant to a fungal disease that has been linked to devastating cancer rates in certain regions (the fungus infects corn naturally and produces a carcinogenic toxin, fumonisin).

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:22 AM | Permalink

I ran across this blog entry today about the GMO debate in Hawaii. Hawaiian legislators have temporary shelved a bill that would ban the cultivation of GMO coffee in Hawaii. The legislators have asked for a study into “the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops” first.

C.S. Prakash

Hawaii Won't Ban GM Coffee
Organic or Bust blog
April 2, 2008

"Hawaii won't ban genetically altered coffee, a decision that worries growers of the Kona coffee brand who want to keep it pure.

State lawmakers shelved a bill recently that would have prohibited growing genetically modified coffee in Hawaii until 2012. Instead, they want to order a study into the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops.

Coffee farmers are worried that genetically modified coffee could contaminate expensive Kona blends, which are only grown on Hawaii's Big Island and exported worldwide.

"The fact that you're creating a 'frankenfood' is very scary. What will it do to my morning cup of coffee?" asked John Langenstein, sales manager for Koa Coffee Plantation."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:11 AM | Permalink

The Hungarian Agricultural Minister, József Gráf, called for a ban on genetically modified crops to be lifted at a conference hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He also admitted that they must proceed with caution, however. According to the article below, Hungary requires a buffer zone between GM and conventional crops, as well as permission from neighboring farmers to plant GM crops right now.

C.S. Prakash

Hungarian minister alludes to lifting ban on GM crops
Check Biotech
March 7, 2008

Agricultural Minister József Gráf said Hungary can not maintain a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops but caution is necessary regarding its scientific effects. He was speaking at a conference hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Gráf said the agricultural community, society and the government are all divided over the issue. New technology cannot be shut out completely, but any loosening of the law requires safety questions being proven absolutely, he added.

Hungary, one of Europe's main seed producers, has passed strict laws that prescribe buffer zones between GM and conventional crops. Farmers also need the approval of neighbouring landowners and users to plant GM crops.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:56 PM | Permalink

GMO Africa blogger James Wachai always seems to be on top of things. Read his latest entry below on the importance of biosafety laws in Africa.

C.S. Prakash

Researcher wants biosafety laws in Africa
GMO Africa
March 6, 2008

Professor Walter Alhassan, a renowned agricultural biotechnologist from Ghana, recently raised a very salient issue regarding agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Alhassan moaned the unwillingness by African governments to enact laws to regulate safe acquisition of agricultural biotechnology. Alhassan regretted that the absence of biosafety laws in many African countries remains the greatest impediment to serious research on genetically modified crops in the continent.

I can’t but totally concur with Prof. Alhassan, and I would encourage other scientists, especially from Africa to stand by him. Unlike pro-biotech lobby groups and multinational biotechnology companies, they’ve the requisite credibility to force their respective governments to act. They’re the right people to explain, unabashedly, what biosafety laws entail. I say this because there’s this conventional belief in most African countries that the sole mission of biosafety laws should be to keep off genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from their territories. Sample this April 2007 statement from Zambia’s Chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee, who said a biosafety law was needed to ensure “…Zambia remains a GMO free country.”

On this blog, just like Prof. Alhassan has said, I once emphasized that the first step to Africa benefiting from new technologies, including modern agricultural biotechnology, is to enact laws to regulate their acquisition. When computers emerged, African countries tried as much as they could to pass Information Technology (IT) laws to ensure their use for government and private businesses. The vigor with which African countries have enacted IT laws to ensure their safe use must, now, be applied to agricultural biotechnology. You can’t adjudge a technology - the way African governments are trying to do - as bad or good, before experiencing it. Europe, whose opposition to GMOs Africa seems to ape, is already conducting field trials of GM crops. Africa countries, except South Africa, are nowhere closer to here. They’re still dialoguing about whether biosafety laws have relevance to them. Isn’t this the time for Africa to heed Prof. Alhassan’s advice and pass biosafety laws, to allow farmers explore potential benefits agricultural biotechnology.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:41 AM | Permalink

There has been a lot of conversation about the rising price of grain in Europe right now. The Irish Times published the following article (reposted by Check Biotech) on the need to lift restrictions on genetically modified animal feed to help livestock owners survive.

C.S. Prakash

North Ireland plea over GM food imports
Check Biotech
March 6, 2008

Northern Ireland farmers must be allowed to import genetically modified (GM) animal feed to help them survive in the face of spiralling grain costs, Assembly members have claimed.

In a debate on the impact of the inflated global feed markets on the local intensive farming sector MLAs backed a proposal calling on the EU to loosen restrictions on the import of biotech feedstuffs.

The DUP added this amendment to an original Ulster Unionist motion urging the Agriculture minister Michelle Gildernew to provide financial support to those farmers who are struggling to cope with a 159% hike in grain prices in the last year.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh) said the livelihood of many farmers depended on the EU lifting restrictions on GM feed for animals

"These are being grown on an increasing scale in America and would go some way to addressing the grain shortage."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:47 AM | Permalink

Check out the following article on the growing acceptance of GM crops in the European Union. According to the article there is currently almost 110,000 hectares cultivated with GM maize in the EU, up from only 62,000 in 2006.

C.S. Prakash

GM Maize: 110,000 Hectares under Cultivation
Check Biotech
March 4, 2008

The cultivation of genetically modified plants in the EU is increasing. In 2007, genetically modified maize was grown on a total of nearly 110,000 hectares in Spain, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Germany. In the previous year, GM plantings comprised 62,000 hectares, totalling approximately 1 percent of maize cultivation areas.

To date, the only type of GMO grown in the EU is Bt maize. Bt maize contains a gene from a bacterium that produces a toxin ( Bt-toxin) to defend it from the European corn borer. An insect pest, the European corn borer primarily is present in southern and middle Europe, and is slowly making its way north.

Regions infested with the European corn borer can experience serious crop losses. Since biological and chemical control methods are expensive and only partially effective, Bt maize can be a money-saving option for many farmers despite its higher seed cost.

In Spain, a substantial amount of the maize production is genetically modified – it is estimated that 25 percent of the current production falls under this category. Bt maize was first grown in Spain in 1998, and by 2004 production had risen to 60,000 hectares. In 2007, GM maize was cultivated on more than 75,000 hectares.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:30 AM | Permalink

Check out this new book I ran across today. Titled “Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa,” Robert Paarlberg explores the reasons why poor African farmers are denied access to technology such as genetically modified seeds.

C.S. Prakash

Starved for Science
Harvard University Press
March 1, 2008

Heading upcountry in Africa to visit small farms is absolutely exhilarating given the dramatic beauty of big skies, red soil, and arid vistas, but eventually the two-lane tarmac narrows to rutted dirt, and the journey must continue on foot. The farmers you eventually meet are mostly women, hardworking but visibly poor. They have no improved seeds, no chemical fertilizers, no irrigation, and with their meager crops they earn less than a dollar a day. Many are malnourished.

Nearly two-thirds of Africans are employed in agriculture, yet on a per-capita basis they produce roughly 20 percent less than they did in 1970. Although modern agricultural science was the key to reducing rural poverty in Asia, modern farm science—including biotechnology—has recently been kept out of Africa.

In Starved for Science Robert Paarlberg explains why poor African farmers are denied access to productive technologies, particularly genetically engineered seeds with improved resistance to insects and drought. He traces this obstacle to the current opposition to farm science in prosperous countries. Having embraced agricultural science to become well-fed themselves, those in wealthy countries are now instructing Africans—on the most dubious grounds—not to do the same.

In a book sure to generate intense debate, Paarlberg details how this cultural turn against agricultural science among affluent societies is now being exported, inappropriately, to Africa. Those who are opposed to the use of agricultural technologies are telling African farmers that, in effect, it would be just as well for them to remain poor.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:18 AM | Permalink

The following commentary by Henry I Miller was published in the Washington Post this week on the rejection of genetically modified products by much of Europe. The commentary mentions that the European Commission recently ruled that GM animal feed would not be allowed into the European Union, despite claims that the livestock industry would be “slaughtered” if something wasn’t done. The piece also includes background on the approval process of new GM products in Europe.

C.S. Prakash

Agricultural trade squeals
Washington Times
February 29, 2008

European Union officials adamantly refuse to let the World Trade Organization save them from themselves.

Despite a 2005 WTO ruling that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the importation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified (GM)," crops and foods, Europe remains recalcitrant, unrepentant — and on the verge of slaughtering its own livestock industry.

European Union agriculture ministers failed yet again Monday to permit imports of five biotech crops intended for animal feed, causing a group that represents European farmers to warn that without greater use of gene-spliced crops, the livestock industry could be decimated.

European shortages of grain for animal feed and soaring prices — caused by both the rejection of gene-spliced grains and the diversion of corn to production of ethanol for fuel — are causing panic among livestock producers. Pig and poultry farmers have been forced to reduce their output, while consumer consumption is down because of higher prices.

Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:12 AM | Permalink

I ran across the following post today on the development of drought-tolerant crops. The author does not appear to take a stance on the subject, and pulls much of his information from this BBC article, which describes what researchers are working on and how it will help in times of drought.

C.S. Prakash

Drought Resistant Plants Could Fight Global Warming and World Hunger
Environmental Graffiti
February 28, 2008

There are a variety of reasons for this, from fear of potential negative health effects to anger at the Monsanto corporation’s business policies with the patented seeds. But there are other groups who fully support GMO crops and research, citing the benefit to the world’s hungry brought about by plants with increased nutritional value and ability to grow in harsh circumstances.

I’m interested to see how both camps react to the newest announcement in GMO crops. U.S. and Finnish researchers recently announced the discovery of the plant gene that controls the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed and water released by a plant.

In practical terms, this means a plant that could both survive in severe drought conditions AND help fight global warming effects.

The gene they discovered controls the tiny pores known as stomata that are located on the leaves of plants. They play a crucial role in photosynthesis, as the plant absorbs carbon dioxide gas through these pores. Water vapor is also released through the stomata as the plant grows.

The researchers, writing in the journal Nature, say the discovery may allow them to genetically modify a plant that will continue absorbing CO2, and possibly even absorb more, but release less water vapor. As plants lose 95% of their water through the stomata, this would mean a plant that could survive in extremely dry conditions.

As it stands now, droughts are one of the most destructive natural forces on the planet when it comes to agriculture. In impoverished areas where many subsistence farmers are growing just to survive, a drought can destroy not only crops but lives. Many drought stricken areas are also areas of extreme poverty and hunger, so a drought resistant crop could help food production rates rise and hunger drop.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:53 PM | Permalink

I found the following commentary in AgriMarketing Magazine on the growing acceptance of biotechnology in the baking industry. The author notes that a few years ago there was a lot of resistance for genetically modified wheat because bakers and millers believed that genetic engineering only benefited the farmer. However now, with more and more farmers switching to GM corn and/or soybeans and away from the less profitable wheat crop, bakers and millers are seeing prices rise and are starting to realize the importance of the technology.

C.S. Prakash

Bakers starting to see folly of rejecting biotechnology
AgriMarketing
February 28, 2008

OpEd written By PAUL AASNESS, who farms near Fergus Falls, MN, is a board member of Growers for Biotechnology (www.growersforbiotechnology.org)

Despite the fact that most wheat farmers have welcomed the advent of biotechnology, end users have not been so supportive.

The end user, especially millers and bakers, argued that the advantages gained with biotechnology were for the growers' benefit only. They made it clear that they were not interested in purchasing commodities that were genetically modified -- especially wheat.

It seems now, however, that the tide may be turning. The milling and baking industry is suddenly realizing that the sky-high cost and critically short supply of wheat is directly related to the absence of efficient technologies in wheat.

Farmers, including myself, have seen huge advantages in growing biotech corn and soybeans. Many of us have reduced our wheat acres steadily in the past 10 years since biotech corn and soybeans became available. Control of pests such as corn borer and corn rootworm and superior weed control with Roundup Ready corn and soybeans have been welcomed with open arms wherever they have been tried. Today, 73 percent of the corn and 91 percent of the soybean acres in the United States have one or more biotech traits. All this has taken place in a little over 10 years since biotech seeds were first available to us. It's hard to justify fighting to produce wheat when it's much more efficient and profitable to produce a biotech crop.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:59 PM | Permalink

Despite calls to maintain a ban on genetically modified canola in the Australian state of Victoria, the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) is sticking by its endorsement. The following ABC News article quotes VFF president Simon Ramsay as saying that by ending the moratorium of GM grain farmers will have more choices and can take advantage of new technology.

C.S. Prakash

VFF says GM crops give farmers 'choice'
ABC News
February 27, 2008

The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) is countering calls from anti-genetically modified (GM) food groups for the Government to maintain its ban on genetically modified canola.

The moratorium on GM canola expires in Victoria tomorrow, allowing seed and chemical companies to start selling their patented seeds.

Anti-GM groups are concerned conventional crops will be contaminated, and that herbicide resistant canola will become an environmental weed.

VFF president Simon Ramsay says farmers will be able to start the accreditation process to grow and sell GM grain under licence.

"What's important now with the sun setting here in Victoria tomorrow is that farmers will be able to have that choice, they'll be able to take advantage of the new technology," he said.

"It not only has good economic outcomes, but it has good environmental outcomes and that's important given that farmers are facing the challenge of climate change."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 12:47 PM | Permalink

The Environmental News Network posted an article announcing that South Korea will begin importing genetically modified corn from the US for manufacturing starch and sweeteners. This will be the first time South Korea has imported GM products, as there is an enormous opposition for them in the country. According to the article, trade sources say this move was economical, as conventional corn costs around $50 a ton more than genetically modified corn.

C.S. Prakash

South Korea breaks GMO taboo with first corn deal
Environmental News Network
February 26, 2008

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea has for the first time bought genetically-modified corn for food, risking a backlash from consumer groups to secure cheaper grains.

With record high global wheat, corn and other food prices making governments increasingly anxious about staple supplies and quickening inflation, the debate over the merits and safety of GMO crops is taking on new urgency.

On Tuesday South Korea, one of only two countries in Asia to stick with more expensive non-GMO corn for food use, said it will import 50,000 tons of U.S. genetically-altered corn in May for manufacturing starch and sweeteners.

Trade sources said the decision was economic. Corn that has not been modified costs around $50 a ton more than the genetically-altered variety, an important factor when corn prices have more than doubled in the last two years.

But it has drawn ire from consumer groups, who say it will expose consumers to possible health risks, echoing European resistance to what lobby groups there call "Frankenstein foods."

"If the companies go ahead with the move the groups will join hands and carry out campaigning and boycott products from those manufacturers," said spokesman Kim Dae-hoon of ICOOP, South Korea's largest consumer lobby group.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:58 PM | Permalink

Check out the following letter to the editor of the Canberra Times in Australia. The author is seeking to correct a previous article on GM canola and its benefits.

C.S. Prakash

Canadian agronomists detail the benefits of GM canola in the ground.
GMO Pundit
February 26, 2008

Dr Rene Van Acker is right to suggest Australia should learn from Canada's experiences regarding genetically modified canola (Look to Canada for GE solutions, February 5, p11).

However, he is less correct in the Canadian lessons he gives. The benefits of herbicide tolerant canola for western Canada have far out weighed the risks over the last 11 years.

A recent study on the impacts of GMHT canola in western Canada carried out by the University of Saskatchewan gives some real life lessons that can be heeded. Results show that 90 per cent of canola farmers report reduced soil erosion and increased soil moisture conservation.

Sixty per cent of growers reported a carry-over benefit to the subsequent crop year in terms of improved weed control, with half of these growers assigning a dollar value of $A13.09, or about the cost of one glyphosate application in Canada. Fifty per cent reported they used no chemicals on crops that followed GMHT canola which had dramatically reduced the volume of chemicals applied to fields.

Canola used to be reserved for the most weed-free fields but is now a crop for difficult fields with weed problems.

In addition to the direct benefits to growers of increased yield and profitability, breeding and crop development activities by private companies has increased dramatically. The result has been more (150) and higher-yielding hybrid variety choices.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:12 PM | Permalink

I just found this article in the UK newspaper The Telegraph. It seems researchers at Open University in the United Kingdom conducted a study that found farmers in the UK are in favor of growing genetically modified crops as long as they provide economic benefits to the farmer. According to the article, the farmers interviewed also felt that GM crops could help produce enough high-quality food to feed the citizens of the UK as the country's climate changes and the population soars. Check out the article below.

C.S. Prakash

UK farmers want to grow GM crops
The Telegraph
February 24, 2008

Farmers are in favour of growing genetically modified crops in Britain despite public fears over their safety, new research has revealed.

An Open University study has found that farmers and farming industry leaders believe GM technology is the only way to produce enough high-quality food as the country's climate changes and the population soars.

Farmers claim that using GM crops will help them cut down on herbicides and pesticides while increasing the amount of food that can be harvested.

But their views contrast with the strong public scepticism over GM foods and fears that the genes artificially introduced into plants could escape into the wild, changing natural plants.

Prof Andy Lane, who led the series of interviews and workshops with 50 farmers and members of farming organisations, said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum."

The findings come just one week after government officials confirmed they were considering growing GM crops at secret locations to combat vandalism caused by anti-GM campaigners.

Biotechnology companies have warned the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that GM trials have become too expensive to conduct in Britain.

The debate over GM crops was reignited last year by the Government's former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, who claimed opposition to GM technology was leaving Britain at a competitive disadvantage.

Farming leaders also agree that they are suffering as other countries have embraced biotechnology.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:41 PM | Permalink

Science Daily published an article on a study conducted at Open University in the United Kingdom on how farmers feel about genetically modified crops. The research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that farmers are actually in favor of GM crops as long as they provide economic benefits to the farmer.

C.S. Prakash

What Farmers Think About GM Crops
Science Daily
February 24, 2008

Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

A group at the Open University, led by Professor Andy Lane, has taken the first systematic look at what large-scale, commodity farmers -- not those mainly involved in organic growing - think about genetically-modified crops. We know how consumers, governments and the food industry regard GM, but this is the first proper look at the attitudes of the people who would use GM crops.

Lane and his colleagues found that both farmers who have been involved in GM crop trials and those who have not, regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, such as those which have produced today's established crop types. They regard GM crops as an innovation which they would assess on its merits. Their real interest is in how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms. The research suggests that these farmers do not think that GM raises any issues of principle, or that it is a matter of right or wrong.

Professor Lane said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at once."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:05 PM | Permalink

Reuters recently published the following article on the benefits of genetically modified crops. The article focuses on the need for GM crops at a time when food prices are rising sharply, with no slow down in sight. Read more about this below and then follow the link to read the full article.

C.S. Prakash

Pioneer sees GMOs gaining global market acceptance
Reuters
February 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rising food prices will encourage worldwide acceptance of genetically engineered crops as more consumers set aside health concerns for the lower prices that biotech crops may deliver, a leading seed company executive said.

Governments that have been slow to accept biotech crops, or GMOs, will find it increasingly difficult to deny access to the technologies as food costs are poised to continue climbing.

"The only way we're going to meet some of these demand expectations that we have and are going to have in the future is through improved productivity. A lot of that productivity will come through technology," said Paul Shickler, president of Pioneer Hi-Bred International and vice president of DuPont Co (DD.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

U.S. food prices rose by a 17-year high of 4 percent last year and were seen rising by another 3 to 4 percent in 2008. Food inflation was expected to outpace the general inflation rate through 2010, the U.S. Agriculture Department forecast.

Global food prices have risen even faster and will continue to do so, economists said.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 12:57 PM | Permalink

Truth about Trade & Technology board member Reg Clause posted a commentary this week about the ISAAA report. His comments on the benefits of biotechnology and the response by advocacy group Friends of the Earth are posted below. Take a look at let me know what you think.

C.S. Prakash

The Farmers Choice
Truth about Trade & Technology
February 22, 2008

I noticed a news headline the other day, “Biotech reports spark debate over potential benefits.” I discovered two things upon reading the article. 1) Utilization of biotech crops is growing in double digits annually, increasing global productivity substantially, reducing poverty by helping farmers and keeping food affordable, reducing the environmental impacts of farming and contributing to the potential for cost effective biofuels. All backed up by objective evidence. 2) A group called “Friends of the Earth” will have none of this and take issue with the report line by line; generally backing up their statements with all-to-familiar spin and bluster.

Now, in regards to the “Friends” mentioned above, I couldn’t help thinking of a line from a comedian I once heard. He said, “some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I’m afraid of widths.”

I mean, really, there is no amount of good news that will satisfy some folks.

Check out the new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which determines the global area of biotech crops each year. The latest one, covering 2007, was just released. It tells a now familiar story of rapid growth in the use of biotech and the totally positive impacts on the environment and people’s lives.

Twelve million farmers in 23 countries were responsible for this achievement, up from 10.3 million in 21 countries in 2006. The number of biotech acres they planted increased by 12 percent from a year before. The newest members of the GM club are Chile and Poland.

Farmers in the United States accounted for about half of the world’s biotech acres. Growers in South America--mainly Argentina and Brazil, plus Paraguay and Uruguay--planted about one-third of the total. Canada, India, China, and South Africa also devoted substantial acreage to GM crops.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:21 AM | Permalink

North Dakota’s Grand Forks Herald posted the following commentary from Bruce Freitag. The commentary focuses on the need by farmers to adopt new technologies in order to “meet this global demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel.” He specifically cites India and China as countries that are demanding more meat and protein, and many are calling for a new “Green Revolution” and easy access to modern technologies to boost productivity. Read more of this commentary beow.

C.S. Prakash

VIEWPOINT : Our world needs biotech foods
Grand Forks Herald
February 22, 2008

SCRANTON, N.D. - Just before giving up his post as interim U.S. agriculture secretary last month, Chuck Conner warned that growing enough corn, soybeans and wheat to meet food, feed and biofuel demands this year is going to be “very dicey.” We farmers were up to the challenge this year, but many of us are concerned that we will be denied the tools we need for the long run, he noted.

Renewable fuels are a new challenge. Congress has mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels per year by 2022 - a 130 percent increase over current ethanol production levels. Corn-based ethanol is expected to be about 40 percent of that.

Add in the vagaries of climate. Two years ago, drought in France and Spain resulted in the worst corn production in 50 years. In Australia, where drought has been persistent since 2002, some wheat farmers failed to harvest a crop for the first time in 40 years.

Wheat yields were also disappointing in Europe. U.S. corn production was down 5 percent because of drought in 2006, but it rebounded in 2007.

In December, Jacques Diouf, the head of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, warned that people were already starting to go hungry in poor countries because hotter weather was shrinkingthe food supply and pushing up prices.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:51 AM | Permalink

Fellow biotechnology blogger James Wachai posted a new entry on his blog GMO Africa this week on the ISAAA report. His main focus is attempts by anti-biotech advocacy groups to mislead people into thinking that biotech crops are a bad thing. He also discusses the positive aspects of the report.

C.S. Prakash

ISAAA reports a surge in biotech crops cultivation
GMO Africa
February 21, 2008

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has released a report that shows a surge in cultivation of biotech crops. Contrary to many anti-biotech critics, the surge seems to portend biotech crops striking a nerve with farmers.

What’s perhaps more interesting is the fact that developing countries continue to perform as well as developed countries in growing biotech crops. This disambiguates a widely held argument that biotech crops are a preserve of developed countries. On this blog, in August 2006, I argued that smallholder farmers benefit from biotech crops as much as large-scale farmers.

Despite this, sadly, Africa continues to lag behind in the adoption of biotech crops. To the continent, crop genetic engineering remains an enigma. Politics has, unfairly, been infused into this debate. As the rest of the world angles itself to share the spoils of modern agricultural biotechnology, African countries, with the exception of South Africa, are still haggling on whether or not to admit biotech crops to their farms.

The 2007 ISAAA’s latest report, perhaps, sends an unambiguous message that there’s something striking in modern crop genetic engineering that Africa, and other parts of the developing world, can’t afford to ignore. Africa ought to know that a lot of debate swirling around biotech crops, principally, is meant to mislead and confuse. There are groups ought to hijack landmark scientific innovations, especially in the field of agricultural biotechnology, for their own selfish ends. Let’s all take a lesson from the ISAAA report, whose other highlights include:

• Biotech crops cultivation grew by 12%, which translates to 12.3 hectares.
• There are currently about 114.3 million hectares of land under biotech crops.
• The number of countries growing biotech crops increased to 23 from 21 in 2006. The new entrants are Chile and Poland.
• From 1996, when the first biotech crop was commercialized, to 2007, the accumulated hectarage of these crops stands at 690 million hectares.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:27 AM | Permalink

The president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF), Iain Ferguson, recently gave a speech at the National Farmer's Union Conference in England. Ferguson endorsed genetic modification as a possible solution to the rising food costs and shortages. Read more about this in the following Food Navigator article.

C.S. Prakash

GM may provide solution to rising food prices
Food Navigator
February 20, 2008

The continuing increases in raw material costs could shine a favourable light on genetic modification as pressure mounts in Europe to boost harvests.

Speaking at yesterday's National Farmer's Union Conference, Iain Ferguson, chief executive of Tate & Lyle and president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF), said British food prices are rising at their fastest rate since records began.

He quoted the Daily Telegraph as saying food prices in the UK are fuelling a rise in the average family's annual shopping bill of £750.

"We have to face up to the issue of genetic modification and rise to the challenge of helping to foster a fair and scientific debate on an issue that has typically been clouded by suspicion and a lack of trust," Ferguson said.

"The current economic climate with rising food prices and concerns over long term availability of commodities may well give us the opportunity to begin to do this."

Farmers have remained cautious to support the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while consumers continue to express concern on their environmental impact and possible long term health risks.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:04 AM | Permalink

Reason Magazine posted a commentary on its blog by science correspondent Ronald Bailey criticizing the recently released Friends of Earth report. The report is highly critical of biotech crops and pesticide use. Bailey instead points to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications’ (ISAAA) report as an example of how biotechnology serves as a “resource [for] poor farmers in developing countries.” Bailey calls Friends of Earth an “ideological environmentalist group” and its recent report “another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops.” Read more of this entry below.

C.S. Prakash

Are Farmers Stupid, or Deluded, or Both?
Reason Magazine
February 19, 2008

Last week, the ideological environmentalist group Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops. FOE's latest salvo is its report "Who Benefits from GM Crops?," issued explicitly to counter the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications' (ISAAA) annual global assessment of biotech crops. FOE claims biotech crops yield less than conventional crops, harm the environment, are technologically stagnant, have done nothing to help poor farmers, and are monopolized by a few giant corporations.

The ISAAA 2007 report on the global status paints a far different picture. The ISAAA notes that farmers around the world continue their rapid adoption of biotech crop varieties. In 2007 the global planting of biotech crops rose to an all time high of 282 million acres, a 12 percent increase over 2006. In addition, the number of farmers choosing to grow biotech crops rose from 10.3 million in 2006 to over 12 million in 2007. The ISAAA report notes that 11 million of the biotech growers are resource poor farmers in developing countries, the majority of whom cultivate insect-resistant cotton. Biotech crops are now planted in 23 countries, and 29 others have approved the import of biotech food and feed.

Let's look at FOE's claims about the alleged faults of biotech crops.

Do biotech crops yield less than conventional crops? FOE is artful in its use of data. Some biotech varieties did initially impose slight yield penalties when compared to conventional varieties. This occurred because breeders improved conventional varieties during the years it took biotech crops to be approved by regulatory agencies. Even so, farmers adopted slightly lower yielding biotech crops because they were cheaper to grow. Biotech crops need fewer pesticide applications and require less plowing. A 2006 study by the British agricutural and food economics consultancy, PG Economics, found no impact from biotech on soy yields while cotton and corn enjoyed higher yields. Even though biotech seeds cost more, overall lower production costs more than make up for the initial expense. The PG Economics report estimates that biotech crops have increased farm incomes by $27 billion since 1996.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 10:18 PM | Permalink

According to the recent report published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications ninety percent of farmers growing genetically modified crops are from developing countries. The report states that 23 countries — 12 of which were developing nations — planted GM crops in 2007. In total, 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide, with 43 percent of the global GM crop area in developing countries. This is great news!

C.S. Prakash

GM production 'growing in developing countries'
SciDev.net
February 18, 2008

Ninety per cent of farmers growing genetically modified (GM) crops are from developing countries, according to a report.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit organisation promoting agricultural biotechnology for the poor, say that GM crops were grown by 11 million small and resource-poor farmers in 2007 — 90 per cent of the total number of GM-growing farmers worldwide.

This was an increase of 18.3 per cent from 2006, when some 9.3 million small farmers were represented.

"With increasing food prices globally, the benefits of biotech crops have never been more important," said Clive James, one of the authors of the report and chairman of the ISAAA, in a press statement.

According to the report, launched last week (13 February), 23 countries — 12 of which were developing nations — planted GM crops in 2007. In total, 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide, with 43 per cent of the global GM crop area in developing countries.

In terms of hectarage, the biggest GM producer is still the United States, followed by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:13 AM | Permalink

Domestic Fuel posted an article reporting that the Massachusetts biotechnology company Metabolix Inc. and the Missouri-based Donald Danforth Plant Science Center are teaming up to develop an oilseed that can produce both biodiesel and plastics. The researchers are working to create to genetically modified oilseeds that will produce plastic polymers as they grow. Once harvested, the crop would be broken down into oil for biodiesel refineries and polymers for the production of bioplastics that break down into environmentally friendly waste. Read the article below to learn more.

C.S. Prakash

Growing a Seed for Biodiesel and Plastics
Domestic Fuel
February 8, 2008

A Massachusetts biotechnology company has joined with a Missouri research firm to develop an oilseed that can produce both biodiesel and plastics.

And this story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says Metabolix Inc. and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center will get some money from the state of Missouri to work on the idea:

“It’s exactly what the civic leadership in St. Louis has been positioning St. Louis and the state to become,” said Rob Monsees, executive director of the Missouri Technology Corp., which gave a $1.14 million state grant to the project. “Metabolix is hopefully the first of many examples of plant biotechnology companies that are going to be finding their way to Missouri.”

Scientists from the company and the Danforth Center are working to genetically modify certain oilseeds to produce plastic polymers as they grow. Once harvested, the crop would be broken down into oil for biodiesel refineries and polymers for the production of bioplastics that break down into environmentally friendly waste.

Bioplastics — plastic derived from plant or microbial sources, rather than petroleum — would provide biodiesel facilities with a valuable co-product that they could sell to offset the cost of producing fuel for autos and trucks.

“This is an opportunity that’s potentially very good in terms of the economics,” said Oliver Peoples, Metabolix co-founder and chief scientific officer.

The work will go on near the Danforth Center near St. Louis with plans to open a pilot plant in 2011.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:57 PM | Permalink

Arcadia Biosciences will begin offering carbon credits to Chinese farmers who plant their rice, according to an article on Treehugger.com. The rice is genetically modified to require less nitrogen fertilizer, which would be less carbon dioxide would be released into the air. Under the Kyoto Treaty, the credits gained from that reduction can then be sold on the global market, bringing extra money to farmers.

C.S. Prakash

Genetically Modified Rice to Fight Global Warming in China
Treehugger.com
February 7, 2008

There are some smart people at Arcadia Biosciences. They not only have created a crop of rice that requires less nitrogen fertilizer, they also figured out a way to work with the Chinese government to allow Chinese farmers to get carbon credits when they use their rice. The reasoning is, less nitrogen fertilizer equals less nitrous oxide emissions (a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide). Under the Kyoto Treaty, the credits gained from that reduction can then be sold on the global market, bringing extra money to farmers. "Swapping global rice supply to the GM version, the company says, would save the equivalent of 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and generate £750m in carbon credits for farmers."

The widespread use of nitrogen fertiliser is reckoned to account for about one-third of agricultural emissions. Less than half the nitrogen is typically absorbed by crops, with the rest leaking into the soil and water supplies, or released to the air as nitrous oxide. The Arcadia technology inserts a gene that improves the nitrogen uptake, which means less fertiliser is needed to produce a given yield of crop.

From our point of view, this is a good thing as long as everything is completely and thoroughly tested for safety. Maybe if the choice was "perfect world" vs "GM crop", we wouldn't be in favor of it. But as things stand, our atmosphere could use less nitrous oxide, our water could use less nitrogen runoffs, Chinese farmers could use more money and biotech firms should get the signal that developing eco-beneficial crops is a good idea. Not to mention that most nitrogen fertilizer is made from fossil fuels (natural gas).

Arcadia is working to apply the improved nitrogen-absorption technology to GM wheat, rape seed oil, sugarbeet, maize, sugarcane, cotton and turf for golf courses and landscape gardening.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:04 PM | Permalink

I ran across this article on David Tribe’s blog, GMO Pundit. Australia’s ABC News reported that genetically modified bananas will be field tested in Australia this year. The banana has extra genes that increase the levels of pro-vitamin A and iron. Read more about this below.

C.S. Prakash

Healthier GM bananas in Queensland
GMO Pundit blog
February 7, 2008

Australia's first genetically modified bananas could be growing in North Queensland by mid-year.

Scientists from the Queensland University of Technology will trial Cavendish bananas with extra genes that increase the levels of pro-vitamin A and iron in the fruit.

The technology will then be used to improve banana varieties in Uganda, where mineral and vitamin deficiencies are a big problem.

Professor James Dale says the field trials are a major step forward for the project.

"It will be the first field trial of genetically modified bananas in Australia and one of probably only three or four in the world", he says.

"It will be a very big step for us, fabulous to see the sort of genesis going from that first cell that we transformed back to a plant in the field, it's fairly exciting".

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:59 PM | Permalink

James Wachai, author of GMO Africa, posted an entry on the announcement that researchers in New Zealand have genetically modified an onion to not only be tear-free, but also be sweeter and healthier. Wachai writes that he is curious how the anti-GM activists will respond to this announcement, since the scientists did not insert a gene to accomplish this, but rather silenced one.

C.S. Prakash

No more teary onion, thanks to genetic engineering
GMO Africa
February 5, 2008

The blog, Rael the Prophet, reports on an article in the UK Telegraph about a research on a genetically engineered tear-free onion being collaboratively conducted by researchers from Japan and the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research. We’re all aware how teary an onion can be if mishandled when chopping. To men and women who spend considerable amounts of time cooking, this, definitely is news worth celebrating.

In addition to ridding onion of the gene that causes teary effects on our eyes, these researchers promise that this new variety will be sweeter and healthier.

What an exciting research? Indeed, it has generated quite a buzz. The journal Onion World, in its December edition, has featured this work, which is being piloted by Dr. Colin Eady. The popular environmental blog Environmental Grafita gleefully proclaims, GM onions means no more tears, with sarcasm:

Anti-GMO activists may soon be tearing up after a New Zealand company announced the development of a genetically modified tear free onion.

I can’t also wait to see their [anti-biotech activists] reactions. Instead of inserting a foreign gene into the onion, which has been the practice in crop genetic engineering, researchers in this project will be working to suppress the gene that makes onions teary.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:28 PM | Permalink

Food Navigator published an article on the negative views still held by much of Europe on genetically modified organisms. The article quotes Natalie Moll, a director at Europabio, the European Association for Bioindustries several times throughout the article on such topics as the approval process in Europe, competition around the world, University research and bans in EU member states of GM crops.

C.S. Prakash

Fickle European GM policies stifle competition, say experts
Food Navigator
February 4, 2008

The unstable political situation surrounding the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is restricting university research and pushing small companies out of the arena, thereby restricting competition, said a GM expert.

Natalie Moll, a director at Europabio, the European Association for Bioindustries, told FoodNavigator.com: "The agricultural industry is lacking courageous people who are willing to take the chances in an area where the market is uncertain. Only big companies can survive."

As European member states struggle to agree on a biotech policy, with different countries applying their own bans and restrictions on GM research and cultivation, research and development is being sacrificed.

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption, but for animal feed only.

GM crop cultivation is expanding in Europe, with over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops harvested in seven EU member states last year, representing a 77 per cent increase.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:10 PM | Permalink

According to the UK’s Telegraph, there could be an onion that doesn’t make you cry when you slice it. Researchers in New Zealand and Japan are working on, and may have created an onion that does just that, and is healthier and tastier on top of it. Using RNA interference, scientists silenced the gene responsible for making you cry, redirecting into compounds responsible for flavor and health. While this won’t be available to consumers for a while, it is definitely something to look forward to!

C.S. Prakash

GM tear-free onion created by scientists
The Telegraph
February 1, 2008

A tear-free onion that should be tastier and healthier has been created by using genetic tinkering to turn off the enzyme that makes us cry.

The onions, which can be chopped without painful, stingy, weeping eyes, have been tested in the laboratory by New Zealand Crop & Food Research scientist Dr Colin Eady, with his collaborators in Japan.

"If the research progresses well, would like to see them become the household and industry norm within the next decade," says Dr Eady.

The research team has been unable to induce tearing by crushing their model tearless onions, which emerged from a discovery by Japanese scientists of the gene behind the tears. "When you slice the vegetable, it doesn't produce tears."

The key is not to introduce a foreign gene but to silence one using a phenomenon called RNA interference. By stopping sulphur compounds from being converted to the tearing agent and redirecting them into compounds responsible for flavour and health, the process could even improve the onion.

"We anticipate that the health and flavour profiles will actually be enhanced," Dr Eady says.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:22 PM | Permalink